The Faulty Logic Behind Pro-Car Populism

If you’ve ever made the case that roads and parking shouldn’t be subsidized, you’ve probably heard the counter argument that raising parking rates, gas taxes, or tolls is regressive policy that will hurt the poor. And it’s true that raising the prices of those things would mean everyone, including those with low incomes, would pay more for them.

But as Bill Lindeke masterfully lays out at Network blog Streets.mn today, ending car subsidies still leads to more equitable development than perpetuating them:

A Kelly cartoon in The Onion via ##http://www.streets.mn/2013/04/23/what-to-do-with-pro-car-populism/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Streetsmn+%28streets.mn%29##Streets.mn##

It’s a perverse paradox where the automobile’d sprawling American landscape is justified because it helps the poor. For example, you’ll see the pro-sprawl lobby use housing costs to justify limitless development, or gentrification activists argue that transit or bicycling investments are bad because they increase property values, hurting the poor.

What this argument is missing is how the current system is regressive. The present structure of subsidizing driving, parking, and boundless urban development harms the ‘inner city’ through freeway and road expansions. It benefits the wealthy far more than the working or middle classes.

Next time you’re on the city bus, look around and think about who is riding with you. The vast majority of transit users are poor people. Meanwhile everyone pays for freeways and parking and the mortgage interest tax deduction, whether they use them or not. The current system of subsidies is not a progressive force of social justice. Free and easy motoring increases social and spatial inequality at the expense of more egalitarian urban fabric.

In fact, I’d argue that the opposite has occurred. We’ve demolished affordable housing to make room for freeways and parking garages. We’ve eroded government services through municipal fragmentation, civic tax shelters, and fostered spatial segregation. We’ve abandoned our transit systems, relegating them to the margins. We’ve refused to accommodate transportation alternatives in ways that foster deep inequalities.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

How the Accommodations We Make for Cars Impose Huge Costs on Cities

|
Wide highways, big parking lots, dangerous intersections designed for speed — there are a lot of downsides to all this car-centric infrastructure, including the way it saps the fiscal health of cities. Bill Lindeke at Network blog Streets.mn lists seven, from the erosion of the local tax base due to land consumed for highways to public health costs in the form of […]

Who Pays for “Free” Park-and-Ride Parking?

|
Park-and-ride lots, writes Matt Steele at Streets.mn, are the “darling infrastructure of the transit planning profession.” In exchange for providing a parking spot at no charge to suburban commuters, says Steele, transit systems can increase ridership. But “free” suburban parking isn’t such a sweet deal for everyone. Steele writes that a Metro Transit park-and-ride expansion […]

Residential Parking Reforms Should Benefit All of Minneapolis

|
In June Streets.mn reported that Minneapolis might drop parking minimums for residential developments near transit stations. By doing so, the city would promote walkable development and reduce housing costs. However, City Council President Barb Johnson wants to exclude neighborhoods in north Minneapolis from the parking reforms. Writing at Streets.mn, affordable housing expert Kris Brogan says […]

Minneapolis May Drop Parking Minimums Near Transit

|
Whether you own a car or not, if you live in a city, there’s a good chance you pay for parking. Building parking spots is expensive, but most cities require developers to build a certain amount of parking per residence, driving up the cost of housing. Nick Magrino at Streets.mn reports that Minneapolis is rethinking that […]